Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability Third Draft Report

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree to discuss the response format at first. In this context looking at the 
requirements the CCWG charter is setting here might be of assistance (section 
V, Decision-Making Methodologies):

“ SO and AC support for the Draft Proposal(s)
Following submission of the Draft Proposal(s), each of the chartering 
organizations shall, in accordance with their own rules and procedures, review 
and discuss the Draft Proposal(s) and decide whether to adopt the 
recommendations contained in it....”

For me “decision” and “adoption” means a firm answer to be provided by the SO, 
not just a report of the various positions within it. I’d feel more comfortable 
– also with regards to future reference – if in the end we had a formal vote. 
This could be done eg. rec. by rec. and finally about the whole package – or in 
any more sophisticated way.

I understand that the discussion process within some SGs/Cs is not yet 
finished. Eg this is the case within the ISPCP constituency where we’ll have a 
call on Friday this week. From the ongoing CCWG discussion I’ve taken the 
impresseion that the timeline at the moment is a bit weak (it depends on SO/AC 
input for sure). Maybe tomorrow we could sort out and discuss the very last not 
yet agreeable recs. The formal vote could then be taken at a later stage – 
maybe even at the council meeting next week.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: James M. Bladel 
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 3:35 AM 
To: McGrady, Paul D. ; Marika Konings 
Cc: Johan Helsingius ; GNSO Council List 
Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG Accountability 
Third Draft Report 


Hi Paul.  Sorry for any confusion.

The option to forego a formal vote and simply communicate our position(s)
via letter to the CCWG Co-Chairs is still on the table, but some have
expressed a preference for a more formal measure (and recording) of GNSO
support.  This discussion of how to format our response should be the
first agenda item for our call on Thursday.

And if it helps address the concerns of SGs and Cs, keep in mind that our
objective is to capture and reflect the substance of positions already
submitted during the Public Comment period. None of us are asking (or
authorized) to negotiate these positions, or agree to any new or modified
support conditions.  We either identify & present the common GNSO
positions (where apparent), or (if necessary, in the event of divergence)
refer the CCWG back to the individual SG/C comments.

Hope this is helpful, and looking forward to our call Thursday.

Thanks—

J.



On 1/11/16, 16:21 , "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Thanks all.  I'm confused.  We appear to be talking about the formal
>mechanisms of a vote, but I thought we left it with Thursday's call being
>a time to go through the "temperature taking" document that the subgroup
>went through and then find a mechanism to send that to the CCWG (perhaps
>by letter but most likely not a formal up or down vote) and that the
>formal up or down may come at a later date when we have the next draft
>from the CCWG.  Is that still the plan?  If not, I need to let me C know
>that and start to get more formal instructions than the "temperature
>taking" comments I have been pushing my folks for.  Thanks in advance for
>your thoughts.
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 6:10 PM
>To: Marika Konings
>Cc: Johan Helsingius; GNSO Council List
>Subject: Re: [council] Motion for GNSO Consideration of the CCWG
>Accountability Third Draft Report
>
>
>Thanks for the correction Marika.
>
>Sent via iPhone. Blame Siri.
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2016, at 15:19, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> For the record, under the GNSO Operating Procedures an abstention
>> actually counts as a Œno vote¹ (See section 4.5.3 - 'According to
>> existing rules, any abstention would not contribute to the passing of
>> a motion; therefore, by default, an abstention functions as a ³No²
>> vote. The purpose of the remedial procedures in this section is to
>>minimize this effect¹).
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Marika
>> 
>> On 11/01/16 20:12, "owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Johan
>> Helsingius" <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of julf@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi, James, and thank you for the clarifications!
>>> 
>>>> On each issue, the Council will consider the question of whether or
>>>> not the harmonized statement reflects the consolidated position of
>>>> the GNSO, including any conditions or unmet concerns expressed in
>>>>SG/C comments.
>>>> It
>>>> will be a yes(Support) or no(Object) vote, with any abstentions
>>>> having the effect of 'Support'.
>>> 
>>> And in case of lack of majority support, it will be 'limited support'?
>>> 
>>>> One point on which we have been consistent is that the GNSO response
>>>> is limited to only the CCWG Third Draft, and is not responding to
>>>> comments filed by the Board or other groups.  This is essential to
>>>> allow the CCWG to proceed on any next (final?) draft and its work on
>>>>WS2.
>>> 
>>> So we are assuming one more round of comments?
>>> 
>>>> Hope this is helpful!
>>> 
>>> Very much so, thanks!
>>> 
>>>    Julf
>> 
>
>The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential.
>Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it
>without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive
>any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without
>the permission of the author.